MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762300047 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx086.024

EVALUATION OF BEDSIDE SONOGRAPHY PERFORMED BY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS TO DETECT ACUTE APPENDICITIS IN CHILDREN IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

2017· article· en· W2762300047 on OpenAlexaff
M Nicole, MP Desjardins, Johanne Déry, Jocelyn Gravel

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAppendicitisPediatric emergency medicineProspective cohort studyPopulationPoint of care ultrasoundAppendixAbdominal painEmergency medicineGeneral surgeryEmergency physicianSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested that emergency physicians (EPs) highly experienced in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) have similar performance to formal ultrasound to identify appendicitis in children. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to evaluate the ability of EPs with various levels of POCUS experience to detect appendicitis with POCUS among children visiting a pediatric emergency department (ED). DESIGN/METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in an urban, tertiary care pediatric ED, after being accepted by the ethics committee. The study population was children aged 2 to 18 years old presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain suggesting appendicitis. Patients were excluded if they had a history of appendectomy, instability requiring resuscitation, or were transferred with proven diagnosis of appendicitis. Participating physicians were experienced in pediatric emergency medicine but had various levels of POCUS experience. They received a 1-hour didactical and practical training session on appendix ultrasound. All POCUS were performed by the treating physician before further radiological evaluation following initial physical exam. Final outcomes were determined by pathology and/or operative reports for surgical cases, and telephone follow-up at 3 weeks for those who did not have surgery. The primary analysis was a simple proportion for sensitivity and specificity for POCUS. Expecting a sensibility of 80% based on previous studies, we calculated that a sample size of 50 cases would provide a 95% CI ranging from 66 to 90%. RESULTS: We approached 140 patients, from which 121 were recruited. After 4 exclusions for missing data, 117 patients were included for the primary analysis, of which 51 (44%) had appendicitis. Twenty-two EPs performed between 1 and 20 POCUS. The POCUS identified 27 out of 51 appendicitis for a sensitivity of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.66). A normal or inconclusive POCUS was reported for 54 out of 66 patients without appendicitis (specificity of 0.74; 95%CI: 0.60–0.84). EPs took a mean time of 3,53 minutes to perform POC US. CONCLUSION: This study shows poor sensitivity and limited specificity of POCUS for appendicitis in children. Our specificity is lower that most previous studies, but probably more representative of the limited ability of the majority of EPs to diagnose appendicitis with POCUS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207